Forked Thread: Just played my first 4E game

[radferth]

Forked from: Just played my first 4E game

I personally think the Pro-4E people exaggerate the power of the wizard to try to downplay what 4E did to the wizard.

But that being said, I also think alot of people played with DMs that allowed 3.5E wizards to do too much. They allowed wizards to abuse every loophole they could find with spells like shapechange andgate. They incorporated every broken spell 3.5 put out like avasculate and solipsism. They played with wizards prior to the 3.5 fix to archmage. Things like that.

It seemed that WotC would put supplements that would break the wizard such as new monster books that gave a particular monster they could change into that was overpowered or summon a new uber powerful creature that would wreck an encounter or fight better than the fighter. Or a new spell book with a few new key spells that were much better than anything else at equivalent level. Or a PrC that gave a much better advantage to the wizard class than any other wizard Prc such as archmage or the original elmental savant.

The wizard in the 3.5 PHB was fine. The wizard after all the splat books was a danger to balance if the DM didn't keep abreast of what was going on and was willing to put the kibosh on overpowered spells and combinations as soon as he saw them. That would mean arguing with your players, something I know quite a few DMs don't like to do.

Every time I read a thread comparing 4e and 3e, sooner or later someone will comment that 3e wizards were too powerful and needed to be nerfed. I am still blown away by this, as in most of my 3e campaigns no one wanted to play a wizard, as the couldn't do enough damage. Celtavian lists some possible reasons for this.

Personally, I often found wizards indispensible for their utility spells, but rather underpowered in combat compared to the fighter-types. Do folks have tales for overpowered wizards from close-to-core games, or are all these from campaigns with lots of splatbooks in use?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have had similar experiences. We played with just core, and spell compendium mostly and wizards were just fine. Add enough splatbooks to the mix and every class gets way too overpowered. The same thing will happen with 4E. Tons of under playtested splats will make the classes all "broken" in one way or another. In any edition the players have to give thought about whats get brought into a game.

 

[The Lost Muse]

I think the problem with 3.x wizards is that they are underpowered at low levels; but at higher levels, can cast a save-or-die and take you out in a round unless you make your saving throw.

 

[Plane Sailing]

We played just the three core books (plus psionics - essentially what was in the SRD) and wizards were pretty low on the tree for doing damage.

Strong fighters came top, followed closely by druids and clerics (hello incense of meditation and prayer beads of karma!)

Sorcerers came next on the basis of the ability to make up in volume what they lacked in raw spell power.

Wizards usefulness revolved around utility abilities (teleport etc) more than direct damage in the games we played.

We never got into any of the supplements, for better or worse

 

[Boarstorm]

Evokers tended to be about equal to the party. It's when they spec'd heavily into the save or die stuff that it became ridiculous.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

The wizard or druid has traditionally been the show stealer in most of the games I have run/played in and those have largely been basic rules. No fancy spells or prcs from splat books. And its not just the damge with spells like fireball or the like. With spells like charm, ray of enfeeblement, hideous laughter, you typically could incapacitate the main baddie almost instantly. Also with the scribe scroll feat, you don't even need to memorize those low level utility spells like invisibility, knock, comprehend languages, disguise self etc. Just memorize combat spells that you would need readily at hand. I wouldn't necessarily say the wizard was broken but he definitely seemed like he stole the show more often then not.

 

[billd91]

For the games I've been running, no single type of role has been dispensable. The party I run for the Shackled City has been doing pretty well without a cleric, but the druid has picked up some healing specialties, the paladin gets healing wands, and the dragon shaman has been doing huge amounts of healing with his aura.
The other party has all roles covered pretty well (lightest on trap-finding rogues, actually), and it's only been really recently that the sorcerer has become pretty indispensable. But then, they're fighting groups of giants and a few fireballs are very important to bring multiple giants down in hit points for the fighters to finish them quickly.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm wondering if those that complain loudest about save-or-die spells often gave their baddies actual saves, because at the levels you GET the spells, most your enemies can save against them regularly.

Also, in before someone accuses you of edition wars.

 

[Jack99]

Personally, I often found wizards indispensible for their utility spells, but rather underpowered in combat compared to the fighter-types. Do folks have tales for overpowered wizards from close-to-core games, or are all these from campaigns with lots of splatbooks in use?

The closer to core, the more the wizards stood out. Because let's face it, the core fighter was really bad, compared to the other classes.

I think the problem with 3.x wizards is that they are underpowered at low levels; but at higher levels, can cast a save-or-die and take you out in a round unless you make your saving throw.

Wizards have save or die (or rather, save or just as well be dead) spells at level 1. While they weren't gods, they certainly weren't underpowered.

We played just the three core books (plus psionics - essentially what was in the SRD) and wizards were pretty low on the tree for doing damage.

Strong fighters came top, followed closely by druids and clerics (hello incense of meditation and prayer beads of karma!)

Sorcerers came next on the basis of the ability to make up in volume what they lacked in raw spell power.

Wizards usefulness revolved around utility abilities (teleport etc) more than direct damage in the games we played.

If your wizards were doing damage, they were played sub-optimally.

I'm wondering if those that complain loudest about save-or-die spells often gave their baddies actual saves, because at the levels you GET the spells, most your enemies can save against them regularly.

What is regularly? 40% 50%? 60%? If you think that is good, you are missing the point. When the wizard can throw out tons of these spells every round, with decent to huge areas, some of which are even ignoring his allies, monsters need quite a bit higher to be of any use. Sure, the odd dragon or lich or vampire might be able to resist all the time. However, when 95% of all monsters can't then the wizard starts to shine a bit too much.

Cheers

 

[Voadam]

In my 17th level game the two wizards in our party usually get the least spotlight combat time of the group. The straight fighter archer predominates, even against creatures with DR that are immune to the electricity of his bow. The cleric fighter and the paladin/homebrew templar prc dominate melee with the vow of poverty master of many forms druid in celestial dire bear form is great at improved grab grappling and shifting into odd forms (black dragon, frost giant, fire giant, blink dog) to deal with terrain or energy foes.

The arcane trickster archmage usually does not get touched as he flies with improved invis but his damage is usually not great even with sneak attack disintegrate rays. Resistances, crit immune, and high saves usually knock things down for his attacks.

My eldritch knight is fun to play and versatile with a ton of neat magical defenses, but I am definitely second string across the board mechanically in the party when it comes to fighting.

Our magic is great for out of combat purposes (in particular with divinations and teleports) but in actual combat our wizards are not the dominating factors.